Just to reiterate and consolidate, what we are talking about here is what form should a learner memorize? Which form of a verb is the best "label" for that verb?

We're agreed that the Infinitive is the best form for Greek. Some would say the primary form should be the Aorist. Others might argue that the Present (παρατατική) Infinitive is enough for verbs that do not change their root in the Aorist ("1st Aorists"). I'm thinking that Aorist and Present Infinitives should be presented for all verbs, if we are talking about lists for review and memorization.

Furthermore, with Carl's fine examples in the previous post, I would list the middle (εαυτική) infinitives whenever it is the more commonly used form. If a word was regularly used in both active (κοινη) and middle (εαυτική), then I would list both.

Good. I'm very happy with the results of this discussion. I have a request out to Gonzalo Diaz (Kalos Software) asking how hard it would be to generate a list of Aorist and Present Infinitives for a list of verbs. He said he'd look into it.

I accept that reproof and I'll stop. Sorry for taking the liberty in this thread.

As people have probably guessed, I'm aiming to learn New Testament Greek as a second language in which I can not only read, but also be literate in - rather than as a foreign language in which I would be a passive only participant. I realise now that writing in Greek is an imposition of my personal views and learning biases on the community and that it is unreasonable to force others to understand Greek to understand my thoughts. I will try to brush up my English and continue participating in that way.

To make amends and to make people happy, let me interpolineate and "translate" (I'll keep the feel / mind of the Greek, but change the "language") my posts in Greek - starting from the most recent and working back.

"Such a guideline does us by way of a simple shortly put. But if we are wanting to more accurately to see the difference what and in which way we are having advantageously to learn the verbs, let us gaze upon if the sense of the aorist and of the present differs or no. If no they differ the two, suffices one tense as I was saying. If differ indeed the two, it is better to learn even the two forms of the verb."

"Ughh! I looked beside this thread thinking a foundational question to be. Now now clear is out of the partakers and both of nature of the discussion of this that in this thread we are studying the understanding of a rearing study of pursuit. Into this but allow me thus late to copy from one place to another various viewpoints of me from the of yourself thread.

Admittedly forsooth the aforegoing mind transgresses from part the topic which posited the Randall but rather not I wanted to change the form of the before written utterance of me."

Jonathan Robie wrote:If people want a place to discuss Greek grammar in Greek, I can set up a forum for that.

I'm not in favour of splitting discussions in Greek off from discussions about Greek.

I wish to preach... that highest form of success which comes, not to the man who desires mere easy peace, but to the man who does not shrink from danger, from hardship, or from bitter toil, and who out of these wins the splendid ultimate triumph.(TR-1899)

Paul-Nitz wrote:I have a request out to Gonzalo Diaz (Kalos Software) asking how hard it would be to generate a list of Aorist and Present Infinitives for a list of verbs. He said he'd look into it.

Very cool!

It's easy to do it for verbs which occur in the NT or other available tagged texts (e.g. MorphGNT) in both forms. Just find all lines like250102 V- -PAN---- ὑγιαίνειν, ὑγιαίνειν ὑγιαίνειν ὑγιαίνωand you've already got one infinitive and 1. pers. act. ind. forms which you can take. You can connect the present and aorist infinitive forms via the 1p.a.i. form. I could do this in python language.

Paul-Nitz wrote:I have a request out to Gonzalo Diaz (Kalos Software) asking how hard it would be to generate a list of Aorist and Present Infinitives for a list of verbs. He said he'd look into it.

Very cool!

It's easy to do it for verbs which occur in the NT or other available tagged texts (e.g. MorphGNT) in both forms. Just find all lines like250102 V- -PAN---- ὑγιαίνειν, ὑγιαίνειν ὑγιαίνειν ὑγιαίνωand you've already got one infinitive and 1. pers. act. ind. forms which you can take. You can connect the present and aorist infinitive forms via the 1p.a.i. form. I could do this in python language.

Yes, that's extremely easy for me in XQuery. It's the verbs for which both forms do not occur that are problematic. I had assumed that might include quite a few of them, but perhaps I should see what the data look like ...

cwconrad wrote:I don't know whether this is a rhetorical question ("Who would be so stupid?) or a serious one, but I'll respond on the assumption that it's serious. Randall Buth has suggested, and I would concur, that verbs like ἵστασθαι/στῆναι with intransitive sense of "stand/stand up/come to a halt" should have a separate lexical entry from the causative ἱστάναι/στῆσαι with its sense of "erect/station/bring to a halt." I think it would indeed be best to have two lexical entries for this, but if there should only be one, I think the middle should be the lemma. So with the similar verb ἐγείρεσθαι/ἐγερθῆναι with the sense of "wake up/rise up" and the active/κοινή ἐγείρειν/ἐγεῖραι with the sense "awaken/rouse/erect". There are, in fact, quite a few verbs that should, in my opinion, be lemmatized in the middle/ἑαυτική because these intransitive forms really are primary, while the active/κοινή forms are causatives and usually far less frequent. Then there are what are properly to be called "Middle Verbs" belonging to the various subcategories of reflexive or mostly indirect reflexive type or spontaneous process verbs that have causative active/κοινή forms that are relatively rare: γεύεσθαι/γεύσασθαι "taste" vs. γεύειν/γεῦσαι "give a taste", σήπεσθαι/σαπῆναι "rot" vs. σήπειν/σῆψαι "cause to rot".

Yes, it is a serious question. Looking at Paul the in Africa's data, it would seem that the mesopathetic / heautic diastasis / voice predominates in the tallies, but not in reference works. I mean like its great that reference works are as close to each other as possible, but perhaps it would be better if they were closer to the useages that occur in the text.

I wish to preach... that highest form of success which comes, not to the man who desires mere easy peace, but to the man who does not shrink from danger, from hardship, or from bitter toil, and who out of these wins the splendid ultimate triumph.(TR-1899)

Alan Patterson wrote:Interestingly, Wm Mounce does not have first year students learn accents in Basics of Biblical Greek. Perhaps he feels it is better for 2nd year students, who have enough Greek under their belts, to begin learning accents. Just a wild guess, although he doesn't seem to be too concerned with the accent side of Greek. I wonder if he doesn't believe teaching accents altogether?

In my edition (3rd edition), he covers accents on pages 13-14, and even gives some basic placement rules on pages 18-19. He could have simplified even more by teaching about the mora (unit of vowel length), and then stating "The morae between the accented mora and the last mora cannot belong to different syllables", which would've been both more useful and accurate, and also more concise (I got this rule from Wikipedia).

Edit: Also, I wanted to say that he accents all the words, unlike Wenham, which was my original textbook (and this is one of the two things that makes me greatly prefer Mounce to Wenham).